Matthew 7

I’ve been disturbed lately by the political proclamations of a number of Christian “friends." And sadly, a few are the product of my alma mater. I recently listed the following status on my Facebook page: “M is wondering how anyone can claim to follow Christ, yet support politicians who push for abortion on demand through birth (as all the front-running Dems do…).” I can foresee a number of critiques (or myths, rather) to this statement, to which I have the following responses:

Myth 1: You shouldn’t be a one-issue voter.
Response 1: Oh yes you should, when the issue involves the murder of innocent human life, created in God’s image. Nothing is more important. I submit there is nothing more dear to God’s heart than a little child. For more on that, see Response 2. Furthermore, I can’t imagine voting for a pro-choicer, and then later having to account for that vote before the Lord Jesus Christ. I don’t want that blood on my hands.

So then I hear a follow-up myth: isn’t it hypocritical to vote for a candidate who sends men to war, who ignores the poor, etc.? First of all, anyone in the war is there because he or she voluntarily joined the military. None of us WANT to be in a war. But we were attacked, period. But I digress; that is a different discussion. The fact is that we don’t have a draft; men and women in the military choose to join, and in doing so know the possibility that they may be sent to war (especially those who join post-9/11). Contrast this to a child, who has no choice in conception.

Furthermore, both sides of the aisle want to help the poor; the underlying dispute is HOW to do so, not whether to do so. Contrast this to abortion, where there is a difference of morality—not a difference of strategy.

Myth 2: The Bible says nothing about the abortion issue.
Response 2: The Bible is replete with passages applicable to the abortion issue. Here are JUST A FEW (indeed, entire books are written on this subject alone):
* The Commandment is very clear: You shall not murder (Ex. 20:13).
* When the Law was given, God included a “fetal homicide” law. See Ex. 21:22 (“When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall be fined what the woman’s husband demands, paying as much as the judges determine.”—note that if further harm did follow, the Lord instituted his “eye for an eye” policy).
* God states plainly that He knows us from the womb (and even before), that we are a human being with a soul, separate and apart from our mothers. See, for example, Psalm 139: 13-16 (“For it was you who formed my inward parts; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made…. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. Your eyes beheld my unformed substance. In your book were written all the days that were formed for me, when none of them as yet existed.”) and Jeremiah 1:5 (“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you….”).
* And perhaps nothing sums it up more plainly than Mark 9:37 (“Whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me, and whoever welcomes me welcomes not me but the one who sent me.”) Even as a grade-schooler (when I first felt the call and declared my intent to fight the evils of abortion), I understood the direct application of this passage: if I don’t welcome the little child, then I welcome neither Christ nor God. In fact, failing to accept the little children is a rejection of Christ and God.

Again, these are just a few passages that I thought of in the 10 minutes it took to type them out. A study would yield many more applicable passages.

Myth 3: My candidate doesn’t advocate “abortion on demand”—just that abortion be safe, legal and rare.
Response 3: The presidential candidates’ responses to the April Gonzales v. Carhart USSC decision reveal otherwise. Every major Democratic candidate was horrified that the Supreme Court would prevent a woman from obtaining a procedure that—as both sides admit—involves pulling a usually viable (and moving, struggling) child almost completely outside of the mother, stabbing it, and sucking out its brain. Eyewitness accounts revealed during trial that the babies were wriggling, struggling, and then go limp as then are “terminated.”

And Obama goes even further than Hillary Clinton or Ted Kennedy. Even Clinton and Kennedy approved the federal Born Alive Infants Protection Act, which declares that a child born “alive” (with a very specific definition) after an abortion must be given medical treatment. Indeed, there was little or no Democratic dissent on this bill at the federal level. Even to those Dems, it was obvious that a child born alive must get medical care. Yet, on THREE occasions Obama personally saw to it that a similar state bill did not become law in Illinois. On the first two occasions, Obama claimed that the bill did not contain the same safeguards to abortion rights as the federal bill. On the third occasion, the bill was identical to the overwhelmingly approved federal bill; yet Obama refused to allow the bill out of his committee and to a vote. In other words, he single-handedly retained a bill to prevent it to go to vote—a bill which would prevent infanticide. That is whacked out.

Myth 4: Even under Roe v. Wade, the “abortion right” is only present through the first trimester.
Response 4: The framework set up on Roe (and its companion case, Doe v. Bolton) actually permits abortion on demand through birth—unless a state promulgates a law otherwise. And of course, such state action is explicitly condemned by the Dems.

According to the definition of “health” in Doe, a woman can get an abortion for any reason. This is because “health” is defined so broadly as to take into account mood swings, a last-minute decision that a girl wants to play athletics instead of carry a baby to term, etc. This interpretation of the definition of “health” is not disputed (although we are acting fervently to change it). Thus, a woman can get an abortion at any time and for any reason. That is abortion on demand—and it is supported by every Democratic candidate who demands that Roe and Doe be upheld.

Conclusion

My heart grieves every time I hear of another Christian friend who is supporting a candidate who advocates actions clearly outside “the pale of orthodoxy”—in other words, outside the basic tenets common across the creed-professing Protestant and Catholic denominations. Matthew 15 immediately comes to mind. There, Christ explains the following:

“… [E]very good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will know them by their fruits.”

Note that the “bearing fruit” references throughout the Bible commonly refer to Christians who bear good fruit versus Christians who bear bad fruit—NOT Christians versus non-Christians. Christ then continues,

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. On that day, many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many deeds of power in your name?’ Then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; go away from me, you evildoers.’”

Wow. My friends, think—no, PRAY—before you vote. You are either with Him, or you are against Him. There is no middle ground.